So, for me personally, I've been on both Gsync and non-branded 144hz and I cannot tell a difference. I'm sure someone out there will try and not only explain to me but convince me there are really differences. To me it's all bs marketing.

In all honestly, 1080P is a pretty decent resolution if you are trying to push and sustain 100+FPS...Your 1070 would be hard pressed to maintain that (despite that nice clock) in several games such as GTA V maxed out. My Vega 64 with a sustained 1700+Mhz core clock couldn't sustain 144 FPS at all times. The nice thing is that you can DSR to 1440P/1880P on older games so you get a nice IQ boost while still having super high frame rates.

In all honestly, 1080P is a pretty decent resolution if you are trying to push and sustain 100+FPS...Your 1070 would be hard pressed to maintain that (despite that nice clock) in several games such as GTA V maxed out. My Vega 64 with a sustained 1700+Mhz core clock couldn't sustain 144 FPS at all times. The nice thing is that you can DSR to 1440P/1880P on older games so you get a nice IQ boost while still having super high frame rates.

Click to expand...

Not a decent resolution to look at. Considering most of us have tolerated it for years. 1440 is no comparison. I'd rather run 1440 at MED than 1080 in HIGH.

In all honestly, 1080P is a pretty decent resolution if you are trying to push and sustain 100+FPS...Your 1070 would be hard pressed to maintain that (despite that nice clock) in several games such as GTA V maxed out. My Vega 64 with a sustained 1700+Mhz core clock couldn't sustain 144 FPS at all times. The nice thing is that you can DSR to 1440P/1880P on older games so you get a nice IQ boost while still having super high frame rates.

Click to expand...

I don't need 100 FPS in a 1st person sandbox game, when I do need 100+FPS to feed my Dell, I drop down to low and still enjoy 1440p over 1998..

1080p is the perfect resolution for 24" and 27" monitors. The diminishing point of return, what you actually gain at 1440p and 2k @ 24" and 27" doesn't seem worth it to many and if you follow these forums, many many others. But it's a personal decision. I don't have a problem with noting your opinion but I think it's sketchy to keep talking about it.

I actually want a 32" 144hz 1080p. As soon as I can find a good one for around $300 - $325 I'm buying one.

1080p is the perfect resolution for 24" and 27" monitors. The diminishing point of return, what you actually gain at 1440p and 2k @ 24" and 27" doesn't seem worth it to many and if you follow these forums, many many others. But it's a personal decision. I don't have a problem with noting your opinion but I think it's sketchy to keep talking about it.

I actually want a 32" 144hz 1080p. As soon as I can find a good one for around $300 - $325 I'm buying one.

Click to expand...

Unless you get a VA/IPS panel, wouldn't 32" give a ton of color shift? I mean if it were curved I guess that would help but even with the new modern TN panels I would think going that big would have some color issues.

Monitor preference depends on what you play and what you have experienced.

If all you are doing is casual single player then 60 FPS is fine.
If you are even remotely serious about competitive (Overwatch, Planetside 2, Battlefield) or even co-op (Vermintide 1&2) first person shooter games then 1080p is still where it is at for maintaining 100+ FPS at all times.
If you are really serious about single player you should be running 3D Vision.

I almost bit on the monitor but did not want curved ...ugh.

Best monitor for me right now would be a 27-32", ultrawidescreen (25xx by 1080), 144 hz (lightboost, ULMB), with 3D vision capability (one can dream on this one).

^^^ If I am going to be pushing more pixels then use them to give me a wider field of view hence the want for ultrawidescreen.

Going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1080 is 33% more pixels - Corrected - DigitalGriffin
Going from 2560x1080 to 2560x1440 is 33% more pixels

Have not seen any single card solutions that can play relatively new competitive first person shooter titles with a sustained 100 FPS.

Monitor preference depends on what you play and what you have experienced.

If all you are doing is casual single player then 60 FPS is fine.
If you are even remotely serious about competitive (Overwatch, Planetside 2, Battlefield) or even co-op (Vermintide 1&2) first person shooter games then 1080p is still where it is at for maintaining 100+ FPS at all times.
If you are really serious about single player you should be running 3D Vision.

I almost bit on the monitor but did not want curved ...ugh.

Best monitor for me right now would be a 27-32", ultrawidescreen (25xx by 1080), 144 hz (lightboost, ULMB), with 3D vision capability (one can dream on this one).

^^^ If I am going to be pushing more pixels then use them to give me a wider field of view hence the want for ultrawidescreen.

Going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1080 is 75% more pixels
Going from 2560x1080 to 2560x1440 is 75% more pixels

Have not seen any single card solutions that can play relatively new competitive first person shooter titles with a sustained 100 FPS.

Click to expand...

It's 33% more and 33% more respectively

Going from 1920x1080 to 2560x1080 is 33% more pixels
Going from 2560x1080 to 2560x1440 is 33% more pixels

The 31.5" is not 144hz from what I am reading. If you select the 27" in that list it also is not 144hz.

The Acer should be able to run 144hz but no Lightboost. Seems that Acer has stopped making the GN276HL that I use which allows for lightboost and supports 3D Vision.

Click to expand...

Typically if a monitor will run 144 it will also run 120. It's just how hard they overdrive it. You lose color fidelity the harder you invoke overdrive.

To be completely honest, I have yet to see a gamer who actually benefits game wise on ANYTHING over 60Hz. The reaction time for an average human is 0.19 seconds. 1/60th of a second is 0.016 seconds. That's an order of magnitude LESS. I would be more concerned about lag time, motion blur and color fidelity/contrast/black level which might affect your ability to see that sniper who's camping in the woods. Pulsing the backlight tricks the eyes into seeing a sharper image. Black level and contrast are harder measures to improve with LCD. That's why I'm waiting for OLED to become stable enough to use for desktop without burn in.

But in 10 years, I am betting micro-led will replace them all. All the benefits of OLED none of the drawbacks (Burn in and limited brightness for HDR spec)